The court emphasized that the Government must provide consistent and reasoned decisions regarding premature release applications, ensuring compliance with established policies and avoiding arbitrary rejections.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The rejection of an application seeking premature release of convict prisoner issued in G.O.(D)No.1190, Home (Prison-IVA) Department dated 16.10.2023, is sought to be assailed in the present proceedings. The conviction imposed on the prisoner was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Since the convict prisoner completed ten years, submitted an application under the Government policy for premature release issued in G.O.(Ms)No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 15.11.2021 as amended in G.O.(Ms)No.508, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 18.11.2021.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the application seeking premature release in pursuance of the G.O.(Ms)No.488, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 15.11.2021, was processed by following the due procedures. The State Committee recommended the case of the prisoner on the ground that the prisoner comply with the requirements as contemplated under the said G.O.(Ms)No.488. Recommendation was placed before the Government for taking an appropriate decision. The Government rejected the application mainly on the ground that the nature of offence committed by the life convict prisoner was brutal and he has not yet served 14 years in prison and hence his remission would be premature.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla would contend that the said blanket reason would not satisfy the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The reason assigned in the impugned Government Order would be insufficient to sustain the order and thus this Court has to interfere.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Raj Thilak would oppose by stating that the Government is empowered to exercise its discretion to release a prisoner prematurely. The Government considered the recommendations of the State Committee and arrived at a conclusion that it is not desirable to release the convict prisoner in the present case, since the nature of offence committed by the life convict prisoner was brutal. Such reason satisfies the condition prescribed in para 2(G) of G.O.Ms.No.488 dated 15.11.2021. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.

5. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure the processes through which the decision has been taken by the competent authorities in consonance with the statutes and rules in force, but not the decision itself. We are not in the process of testing the nature of policy of the Government for premature release of convict prisoners. However, in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the High Court has to scrutinize whether the power of discretion has been exercised diligently in compliance with the rules of natural justice or otherwise.

6. No doubt the impugned rejection order, despite the recommendations of the State Committee, states that the application for premature release was rejected on the ground that the nature of offence committed by the convict prisoner is brutal and he has not served 14 years in prison. Whether such reasonings are warranted or not with reference to other similarly placed cases where premature release were considered, are to be looked into by the Government. While considering similar cases, the Government is expected to exercise its discretion uniformly, consistently and without causing any discrimination amongst the life convict prisoners. Therefore, while assigning reasons, if any similar cases are noticed, then the Government has to look into the nature of those offence and its seriousness or heinousness and thereafter take a decision. Mere rejection on the ground that the offence is brutal, would be insufficient for rejection of the application. While exercising the powers of discretion, the reasonings are to be given. The reasons are lifeline for the decision taken administratively and therefore the Government, while considering the applications along with the recommendations of the State Committee, has to assign pr